HV10 comparision standard / Raynox HD-5050PRO lens

[Oliver Reik]

Hello!

Yesterday I bought a Raynox HD-5050PRO lens for my Canon HV-10 camcorder.

As the wide angel of the HV-10 ist not really great, I thought this issue might be interesting for some of you guys. So - here are my impressions. ;-) Please note, that I have no comparision to other conversion lenses.

The Raynox HD-5050PRO lens comes in a plastic casing that can also be used to store the lens while it is not in use.




The lens itself, as well as the accessories, like the lens cover, don't look too high-quality and pretty much 'plastic'.




As the first lens on the camcorder side is a little bit higher than the filter thread, it can't be mounted directly to the HV-10.




A 37mm / 37mm adapter has to be used to bring the lens a few millimeters away from the camcorder. On the sample pictures you will see that this adapter causes vignetting. :-( There are also adapter included that allow to mount the conversion lens to 43, 34, 30.5, 30 and 27mm filter threads.




Here are the sample pictures in full resolution:

Standard lens, widest setting

Standard lens, fully zoomed in

Raynox HD-5050PRO, widest setting

Raynox HD-5050PRO, fully zoomed in

Raynox HD-5050PRO, zoomed in to about the same angle as the widest position of the standard lens

I am interested, what you think about the quality of conversion lens. I find the vignetting (black corners), as well as the loss in sharpness and resolution very obvious and not really acceptable. My personal conclusion is, that I have wasted 135 Euros (78 Euros for the lens + 57 Euros for a Hoya polarizing filter) yesterday. :-(

However I don't know if the quality of the Canon conversion lens is any better. The Canon lens also provides just a 0.7 wide angel conversion. The other thing is that I will travel to China and Japan on Sunday for 14 days, where I definately need a wide angel lens and there is no time left to buy and test another one, so that I have to keep the Raynox. ;-(

Regards,

Oliver

[Javier Gallen]

As far as I know, no wide lens adaptor let you full zoom in without a noticeable sharpness loss.

Vigneting could be better, but still didn't make footage unusable. Don't get obsesed with that, and keep in mind that most of screens don't show 100% of the area, so the vigneting is probably not showing.

[Chris Hurd]

Thanks a bunch for submitting this great report, Oliver -- sure appreciate all the pictures!

[Tom Hardwick]

I'm not quite clear why it is you have to extend the lens away from your zoom's front elemet with a 37>37 adapter. Can you not fit the lens without this? It's a 0.7x so is very mild and should be as sharp as your standard zoom. And there should be *no* vignetting of the frame.

I've used and tested Raynox lenses in the past and found them to be good. It's important (at very short focal lengths) to stay well away from small apertures - shoot around f/4 if possible.

The Canon one will be little different I suspect. And contary to Javier's comment, I've found many wide converters that let you use the full zoom range with no appreciable loss of sharpness. All will give you more flare and most will increase the barrel distortion though.

You're not using a poloriser at the same time are you? That could well be causing the vignetting.

tom.

[George Ellis]

I am using an HC7, but followed the recommendations from previous HV10 users. They were able to use the lens without the 37-37 ring and viganetting was minimal. I can use it without the adapter. Without the adapter, you can put a Tiffen UV 62mm filter on the Raynox and it will fit in the plastic box. I like the box as it provides better protection than the cloth bag most lens come with, even if it is Poly-Ethylene with a foam block.

I will shot footage over the next couple of days for comparison.

I have a Sony .7 economy WA for my SD 37mm camera. The Raynox is a much better quality look and feel.

[Bruno Donnet]

I own a HD-5005 Pro (same lens than the HD-5050 Pro), and I've the occasion to compare with some other WAs.

Originally Posted by Oliver Reik

The lens itself, as well as the accessories, like the lens cover, don't look too high-quality and pretty much 'plastic'.

The cover lens, yes, looks very 'plastic', but not the lens itself: it looks much better than cheap WAs (like kenko ones). I'd in hands the Canon WD43 (the SD version, not the WD-H43) and both look the same in term of quality.
At this range of prices, the quality seems good/very good for me.

Originally Posted by Oliver Reik

As the first lens on the camcorder side is a little bit higher than the filter thread, it can't be mounted directly to the HV-10..../...A 37mm / 37mm adapter has to be used to bring the lens a few millimeters away from the camcorder. On the sample pictures you will see that this adapter causes vignetting. :-( There are also adapter included that allow to mount the conversion lens to 43, 34, 30.5, 30 and 27mm filter threads.

You MUST put an adapter ring: the 37mm thread on the lens is there to screw on it the right adapter, even if the right adapter is 37mm too. BTW, due to the optical laws, the image coming outside the WA and inside the lens of the camcorder is 'parallel' (sorry for my bad english... its certainly not the more appropriate technical term) and the optical rules of the WA are calculated at a distance including the ring adapter: if you not put the ring adapter, the image outside the lens will be not more 'parallel', and you will be not able to use it correctly on all your zoom range (lost of focus and more CA).

I use everyday this Raynox WA on my Sony HC1: the vignetting is only visible on the photo mode at full 'wide', and not in the video mode even at full 'wide' (because less surface on the sensor is used in video mode). Have you tried only the photo mode of your HV10? How is it in video mode ? If you have still some vignetting, I thing you must change the WA for an another model/brand.

Originally Posted by Oliver Reik

I am interested, what you think about the quality of conversion lens. I find the vignetting (black corners), as well as the loss in sharpness and resolution very obvious and not really acceptable. My personal conclusion is, that I have wasted 135 Euros (78 Euros for the lens + 57 Euros for a Hoya polarizing filter) yesterday. :-(

All the WA reduce the sharpness, the quantity of light coming on the sensor, and add more 'barrel' distorsion; some ones more, some ones less: the glass size, its quality, and so the resulting price, make the difference. The other WA on the same range will provide the same, or less, quality; I've not tested yet the Canon WA (HD model), but I thing that the result will be quite the same.

You can try some 'bigger' WA in 37mm, like the Sony one (VCL-HG0737Y) but at 320g --2.5 times the weight of the Raynox, and half the weight of the HV10 itself--, you will feel the difference on your hands, everyday, every minute. It's why I consider this Raynox HD-5005/HD-5050 as a good compromise for its price.

If you plan to invest in an another WA, they are usually x0.6 or x0.7: don't forget to get a picture of the Raynox at this same range of power to be able to make a comparison (espacially a comparison of the 'barrel' effect')..

[Oliver Reik]

Hi!

Thank you very much for your replies!

I know that I am a kind of picky. ;-) However I would have prefered to spend some more money, let's say something like 150 to 200 Euros, to buy a lens without vignetting, while in use with a HV-10, and better sharpness and resolution. Sadly in Germany is only the eBay crap, the Raynox conversion lensens and those manufactured by the Camcorder brands available. Probably there is no market for high-quality accessories for consumer camcorders!?

@Javier Gallen:

I find the loss in sharpness and resolution very noticable throughout the entire zoom range, as well as at the widest setting.

@Tom Hardwick:

The vignetting is caused by the 37 / 37mm adapter that has to be used to bring the conversion lens a few mm away from the automatic lens cover of the HV-10. If I mount the conversion lens without this adapter, there is no vignetting. However this is not recommended. If I do so, the lens at the backside of the HD-5050PRO touches the front lens cover of the HV-10 before it is fully screwed in. The filter thread of the HV-10 is already pretty short. Without using the 37 / 37mm adapter, I can only screw it in for about 1.5 turns, I can't tighten it and I think it is not got for the lens cover of the HV-10 nor for the Raynox conversion lens if they touch.


The thread at the Raynox with the overlaping lens




The short filter thread at the HV-10 with the lens cover




The space between the HV-10 casing and the Raynox:




Sample picture without the 37 - 37mm adapter, widest setting:




Regards, Oliver

[Owen Meek]

does anybody have a before & after shot of WD-H43 on HV20/10?

i suppose there would be no barrel distortion on the original lens???

[Tom Hardwick]

Show me a zoom lens on a prosumer/consumer camcorder that doesn't barrel distort down the wide end. Adding a zoom-through wide converter will add to the distortion - i. e. make it worse.

tom.

[Bert Na]

If it's any consolation, you're not the only one who's disappointed with the image quality of the wide angle adapters on the market. I bought a Century Optics 0.65x for my HV10 thinking that its Schneider optics will yield good results but at its widest setting, it's got the same issues as other less costly units: barrel distortion, poor corner sharpness, & optical vignetting. Mechanically, it's ok: it's fairly compact, has filter threads, it fits directly on the HV10 and has zoom through capability. Canon should consider extending the wide range of the built-in lens, many of us are willing to pay a little more for the feature...



Max wide setting:



Max zoom-in setting:

Originally Posted by Oliver Reik

My personal conclusion is, that I have wasted 135 Euros (78 Euros for the lens + 57 Euros for a Hoya polarizing filter) yesterday. :-(

[Ron Chau]

For the money spent, I am happy with my Raynox 5050 and how it performs with my HV10.

Looking at the pictures from the Century Optics lens, I definitely prefer the Raynox.

Here in NYC, the Raynox costs $90, the Century $200.

[Tom Hardwick]

That's not a happy combination you have there Bert, and it may be that you have grounds for a refund. In my group test of wide-angle converters (I used a VX2000) the Century .65x came out tops. I said:

And the winner is…

The Century 0.65x. At just under £400 it’s the most expensive lens on test but it comes with proper lens caps that stay put, it has the best multi-coating and is the sharpest on test, regardless of the aperture used. Wide open it’s at its best in the centre but at smaller apertures the edges catch up. It doesn’t vignette the image at wide angle. There’s no filter thread but the breech lock bayonet is beautifully engineered, smooth as silk and makes the fitting and removal of the lens a quick and secure operation. Note that this only applies to the Sony VX2000, the Canon XM2 and the XL1s, the TRV900 and the DVCAM versions. There is a screw thread version available and a choice of three lens hoods.

It’s the heaviest lens on test at 325g, there’s just noticeable pincushion distortion at telephoto but overall it’s the winner. My only gripe is this. For a lens that isn’t very powerful it distorts straight lines too much. If I fit the 0.5x Cavision and zoom up to match the Century’s field of view I have a less distorting combination. And look at the Raynox – this lens has a lot less distortion for a quarter the price. For a look at the entire range of Century lenses, visit www.centuryoptics.com

tom.

[Bert Na]

Tom -- Unfortunately, returning the adapter is no longer an open option for me, so I share the feeling you described in this earlier post: http://dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?...7&postcount=36. I'll just have to lower my expectations when I use it...

[George Ellis]

I am uploading now. The file will be 77MB. The Raynox is on starting at 1:06. The last last frame finishes with a inline captured still. I dumped MPEG 720p out and converted to WMV.

http://www.versatilemediasolutions.c.../720export.wmv
If you are reading this at 2:51p on 5/19 - it may need a couple of more minutes to upload

This is on a HC7.

Oh, the footage on the house has bad lighting (the sun is just behind it.) I picked it just to get the detail and the vertical lines.

[Ron Chau]

Here is a link to a sample clip showing before and after, HV10 and Raynox 5050.

http://rapidshare.com/files/32443243/hv10raynox.m2t